 The respondents filed the ff:
VELARDE v SJS o Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister
GR NO. 11555 | JANUARY 6, 1917
J. Panganiban
AKYAR | Group 6
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: The United States
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Gabino Soliman
TOPIC: (as stated in the syllabus)
 Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof
CASE SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE: Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions or orders issued
in careless disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be
struck down as void
FACTS:
 SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the RTC-Manila against
Velarde and his co-respondents seeking
o the interpretation of several constitutional provisions, specifically
on the separation of church and state; and
o a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of
religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or
urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a
specified candidate.
 The respondents filed the ff:
o Bro. Eddie Villanueva submitted, within the original period to file
an Answer, a Motion to Dismiss
o Executive Minister Eraño Manalo and Bro. Mike Velarde, filed their
Motions to Dismiss
o His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, filed a Comment and
o Bro. Eli Soriano, filed an Answer within the extended period and
similarly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition.
 All sought the dismissal of the Petition on the common grounds that it does
not state a cause of action and that there is no justiciable controversy.
 They were ordered to submit a pleading by way of advisement,
 It was closely followed by another Order denying all the Motions to Dismiss.
Eraño Manalo moved to reconsider the denial
o His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, asked for extension to file
memorandum
o Only Bro. Eli Soriano complied with the first Order by submitting
his Memorandum
 The trial court a quo opined that the endorsement of specific candidates in an
election to any public office is a clear violation of the separation clause
however, it failed to include a dispositive portion in its assailed Decision.
 Thus, Velarde and Soriano filed separate Motions for Reconsideration but it
was denied.
 Hence, this Petition for Review.
ISSUES:
 Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and substance required by the
Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court? No (relevant to the topic)
RULING: (Doctrine in bold letters)
 1st issue: Denied. The Fundamental Requirements of a Decision are
Missing
o The Constitution commands that “no decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion
for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due
course or denied without stating the basis therefor.”
o Consistent with this constitutional mandate, Section 1 of Rule 36 of
the Rules on Civil Procedure similarly provides: Sec. 1. Rendition of
judgments and final orders. – A judgment or final order determining
the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly
prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law on which it is based, signed by him and filed with the clerk
of court.”
o In the same vein, Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court on
Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “Sec. 2. Form and contents of
judgments. -- The judgment must be written in the official language,
personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him
and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts
proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the
judgment is based.
 Pursuant to the Constitution, this Court also issued on January 28, 1988,
Administrative Circular No. 1, prompting all judges “to make complete
 findings of facts in their decisions, and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of and must be struck down as void.
the case in the light of the evidence presented. They should avoid the
tendency to generalize and form conclusions without detailing the facts from
which such conclusions are deduced.”
 The Court, through Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. in Yao v. Court of
Appeals, discussed at length the implications of this provision and strongly
exhorted thus:“Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article
VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due
process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of
the Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was
decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court. […] The losing party is entitled to know why he
lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe
that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and
distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in
the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing
party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review
by a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the
parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of
legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge,
preventing him from deciding ipse dixit [...]”
 In the present case, it is starkly obvious that the assailed Decision contains
no statement of facts -- much less an assessment or analysis thereof -- or of
the court’s findings as to the probable facts.
 The significance of factual findings lies in the value of the decision as a
precedent. How can it be so if one cannot apply the ruling to similar
circumstances, simply because such circumstances are unknown? Otherwise
stated, how will the ruling be applied in the future, if there is no point of
factual comparison?
 Respondent SJS insists that the dispositive portion can be found in the body
of the assailed Decision. It claims that the issue is disposed of and the
Petition finally resolved by the statement of the trial court found on page 10
of its 14-page Decision, which reads: “Endorsement of specific candidates in
an election to any public office is a clear violation of the separation clause.”
 The dispositive portion cannot be deemed to be the statement quoted by SJS
and embedded in the last paragraph of page 10 of the assailed 14-page
Decision. If at all, that statement is merely an answer to a hypothetical legal
question and just a part of the opinion of the trial court. It does not
conclusively declare the rights (or obligations) of the parties to the Petition.
Neither does it grant any -- much less, the proper -- relief under the
circumstances, as required of a dispositive portion.
 Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions or orders
issued in careless disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity